Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Nice response. Too bad it’s wasted on him.
You got caught pretending to be fair-minded.
Well, maybe my memory is faulty.
If your memory is better maybe you can find and link to that very first post that spoke of yapping dogs.
And identify who made the first post about dogs that yap.
Hey Jeffersondem, you never responded on the other thread after you admitted the southern states were afraid Lincoln and the Republicans were going to get rid of slavery. Which means they rebelled to protect slavery. So your ok with rebels breaking up a constitutional republic founded on the principle that the of all men being equal to form a constitutional republic founded on the concept that some men are meant to be masters and some to be slave?
Here’s Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley that covers that. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. It shows Lincoln was morally above any leaders from the south.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
No need for a link, I remember exactly what I posted, a metaphor for someone who flipped from Federalist to anti-Federalist, joining his friend & mentor in concocting policies to defeat the new US Constitution.
But as is your nature, jeffersondem, instead of taking my point to heart, you distorted & weaponized it.
Oh well...
Also take note ...
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it
He wasn’t morally above anybody.
Except EVERY slaver.
I just wish we’d picked
our own damned cotton.
What was different between his actions and Robert E. Lee's actions?
Analogies are not thinking, Bubba. ;-)
I think your missing the point. His constitutional sworn duty was to save the Union, that superseded any other considerations, including his personal beliefs. But his personal belief was that all men every where should be free. Compare that to the confederacy leaders who believed that some men were meant to be masters and some were meant to be slaves.
As far as picking our own cotton, it may have caused less headaches but we would be missing all the contributions that Americans of African descent have made to this great country. Including the many I served with in the military.
Constitutions of both the United States and the Confederate States enshrined slavery.
Presidents Lincoln and Davis both took oaths to defend and protect the pro-slavery Constitutions of their respective nations.
Until the Fort Sumter Incident the United States had more slave states than the Confederacy.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln added a slave state to his nation. He probably created a new slave to end slavery.
Your first time calling Robert E. Lee a Nazi?
Heroic restraint. Or couldn't you get the kitchen sink detached from the wall?
No they didn't both "enshrine" slavery - only one did. You keep dropping that like a turd in a punchbowl, possibly in the hopes that people will grow weary of correcting you and, like a true leftist, your "big lie" will become ostensible truth.
Only one constitution enshrined the Peculiar Institution - the confederate one. They were proud of their practice and mentioned it a dozen times. The United States Constitution only mentioned it by name when they expressly outlawed it.
Nor is deflection. I seriously want to know what they see as the difference when one man who abandons the flag and uniform to fight against the United States is hailed as a hero, and another is convicted of treason.
I did not call Lee a Nazi. Nazis didn't exist in Lee's time. What I am calling him is someone who abandoned his uniform and flag to fight against the United States, just like that Nazi. In your mind, what's the difference between the two? Simply the ideology? Is it okay to defect if you really, really, really believe in the cause? Is it simply because you like Lee's cause and not Monti's?
“Hey Jeffersondem, you never responded on the other thread after you admitted the southern states were afraid Lincoln and the Republicans were going to get rid of slavery. Which means they rebelled to protect slavery.”
If the southern states were fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
If the islam is fighting for world domination, who is fighting against islam?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.